https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157865 Section 33A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act applied only where a dealer genuinely adopted a transitional accounting year longer than the earlier accounting year to align with the Income-tax Act. Because the dealer continued its normal year up to 30 June 1988 and then closed accounts for a shorter period ending 31 March 1989, the 21-month span could not be treated as one transitional accounting year. The court held that assessment had to be made separately for the regular year and the subsequent part-year period. Section 33A was procedural and could not enlarge tax liability or alter the charging scheme, including the turnover tax threshold under section 9. en-us Thu, 23 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Oct 2013 15:59:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157865 Section 33A of the Bombay Sales Tax Act applied only where a dealer genuinely adopted a transitional accounting year longer than the earlier accounting year to align with the Income-tax Act. Because the dealer continued its normal year up to 30 June 1988 and then closed accounts for a shorter period ending 31 March 1989, the 21-month span could not be treated as one transitional accounting year. The court held that assessment had to be made separately for the regular year and the subsequent part-year period. Section 33A was procedural and could not enlarge tax liability or alter the charging scheme, including the turnover tax threshold under section 9. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 23 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157865